No consensus on global warming

The whole “human caused” global warming is nothing more then an attack by green econuts / media / neo scientists on western culture’s lifestyle and eventually forcing us into using rationed energy while they continue to live extravagantly using purchased “carbon credits”. There is no “consensus” among climatologists that our civilization’s use of fossil fuels are destroying the earth. “Consensus” is totally foreign to the scientific method in that a theory is formed explaining the observed facts, then published for ongoing debate. The Green econuts / media / neo scientists would like you to believe the debate is over but that’s not true.

The planet constantly goes through heating and cooling periods, if you doubt that then you doubt the evidence of past global ice ages or warm periods. Fact, the earth was warmer during the 1930s then it is today. And far less green house gasses from “human” caused energy emissions. Fact, the earth went through what is called the little ice age during the 1500s through 1700s. Fact, the earth was warmer around the year 1000 or else the Vikings couldn’t have settled in Greenland. (later having to leave because the area froze due to the little ice age) Fact, presently only the northern hemisphere is heating up while the southern hemisphere is remaining static in temperature with Antarctica actually cooling down!

Areas of the Earth heating up is due to natural factors beyond our control, such as solar and cosmic radiation and variations in our orbit / axial tilt and no matter what we do will affect it to any measurable extent. Basically the whole green eco nut crowd wants to do is take away our access to cheap abundant energy while establishing themselves as the new ruling order while the rest of us suffer because of it.

Even if science and nature-lovers are wrong about “human-caused” global warming — isn’t it still a good idea to cut back on environmental pollution and the burning of fossil fuels?

I mean — the worst thing that could happen by erring on the side of caution is that we clean up the planet a little and save some oil for later. How is that a bad thing?

On the other hand, if humans are indeed causing (or accelerating / intensifying) global warming, then taking measures to mitigate the damage is a pretty good idea, right?

Please make a sensible case for burning more fuel and polluting the environment even more — because I just don’t see the advantage of that “strategy.”

Tree Hugger

Joe,

Even if science and nature-lovers are wrong about “human-caused” global warming — isn’t it still a good idea to cut back on environmental pollution and the burning of fossil fuels?

I mean — the worst thing that could happen by erring on the side of caution is that we clean up the planet a little and save some oil for later. How is that a bad thing?

On the other hand, if humans are indeed causing (or accelerating / intensifying) global warming, then taking measures to mitigate the damage is a pretty good idea, right?

Please make a sensible case for burning more fuel and polluting the environment even more — because I just don’t see the advantage of that “strategy.”

Joe

The major crux of this debate is whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant or not. The IPCC’s recent report to the UN said that excessive carbon dioxide levels is the number one threat to mankind due to trapping heat from the sun. However, plants thrive on carbon dioxide and faster growing plants means more efficient agriculture, faster thicker growing forests and generally a thriving eco-system all the while removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and producing oxygen. For the uninformed, every breath you exhale is loaded with a “pollutant” according to the UN’s IPCC.

Annual human caused carbon dioxide emissions account for less then 3% with the vast majority of carbon dioxide coming from natural sources such as the oceans. Research has shown that the earth has gone through extreme temperature swings in the past (long before we were around to “pollute”) from warmer with sub-tropical conditions near the poles to glacial conditions extending almost to the equator. And these wide temperature variations have often occured independant of excessive, or lower levels of, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. To me that proves that other forces are at work affecting the global average temperatures- such as the sun, our primary source of heat, and if that thermostat goes up we’re along for the ride and not much we can do to affect it.

The green eco crowd are telling us that the biggest producer of human caused carbon dioxide emissions are mostly from power plants followed by automobiles and the first things they want to do is eliminate cheap coal-fired power production and daily road travel via automobiles. If this situation is so dire why aren’t they pushing hydro-electric or nuclear power generation? Both are highly efficient and cost effective and would solve the power problem (the French have done it) but both are pretty much taboo to the greens. Ideally for them the first step is to roll back our society to something similar to pre-wide spread electrical availability, circa 1900.

Wind generated power is subject to vagries of winds and needs some kind of back up power idling on stand-by to pick up the load when the winds slack off, unless you want black and brown outs. Solar power also needs some kind of back up in the event of successive cloudy days and at night. Both are possible but will not function without massive government subsidies. And if those are implemented guess who’s paying for it? You and I.

An advanced, well equipped society has a much better chance of surviving climate changes that I see are natural and beyond our control. If we’re subjugated to a less productive society, via energy rationing, we’ll be more vulnerable to and less able to recover from man-made or natural disasters.

If people want to voluntarily cut back on “green house” gas emissions then go for it. But when AlGore and his crowd are saying they want us all to submit to a World War II style of government mandated rationing energy and carbon units with the availability of “carbon credits” for the rich to use ,and continue their extravagant lifestyles while the rest of us do without, that’s where I see a serious, non-negotiable issue.

Joe

The major crux of this debate is whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant or not. The IPCC’s recent report to the UN said that excessive carbon dioxide levels is the number one threat to mankind due to trapping heat from the sun. However, plants thrive on carbon dioxide and faster growing plants means more efficient agriculture, faster thicker growing forests and generally a thriving eco-system all the while removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and producing oxygen. For the uninformed, every breath you exhale is loaded with a “pollutant” according to the UN’s IPCC.

Annual human caused carbon dioxide emissions account for less then 3% with the vast majority of carbon dioxide coming from natural sources such as the oceans. Research has shown that the earth has gone through extreme temperature swings in the past (long before we were around to “pollute”) from warmer with sub-tropical conditions near the poles to glacial conditions extending almost to the equator. And these wide temperature variations have often occured independant of excessive, or lower levels of, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. To me that proves that other forces are at work affecting the global average temperatures- such as the sun, our primary source of heat, and if that thermostat goes up we’re along for the ride and not much we can do to affect it.

The green eco crowd are telling us that the biggest producer of human caused carbon dioxide emissions are mostly from power plants followed by automobiles and the first things they want to do is eliminate cheap coal-fired power production and daily road travel via automobiles. If this situation is so dire why aren’t they pushing hydro-electric or nuclear power generation? Both are highly efficient and cost effective and would solve the power problem (the French have done it) but both are pretty much taboo to the greens. Ideally for them the first step is to roll back our society to something similar to pre-wide spread electrical availability, circa 1900.

Wind generated power is subject to vagries of winds and needs some kind of back up power idling on stand-by to pick up the load when the winds slack off, unless you want black and brown outs. Solar power also needs some kind of back up in the event of successive cloudy days and at night. Both are possible but will not function without massive government subsidies. And if those are implemented guess who’s paying for it? You and I.

An advanced, well equipped society has a much better chance of surviving climate changes that I see are natural and beyond our control. If we’re subjugated to a less productive society, via energy rationing, we’ll be more vulnerable to and less able to recover from man-made or natural disasters.

If people want to voluntarily cut back on “green house” gas emissions then go for it. But when AlGore and his crowd are saying they want us all to submit to a World War II style of government mandated rationing energy and carbon units with the availability of “carbon credits” for the rich to use ,and continue their extravagant lifestyles while the rest of us do without, that’s where I see a serious, non-negotiable issue.

Christina Sabella

Global warming is increasingly recognised as the key threat to the continued development – and even survival – of humanity. Here, we give the context obtained from earth history, as the pattern of global environmental change in the past provides an indispensable context to establishing likely trajectories of future climate change. We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling.

Do we need new laws requiring industry to cut emissions of global warming pollution?

Yes. The Bush administration has supported only voluntary reduction programs, but these have failed to stop the growth of emissions. Even leaders of major corporations, including companies such as DuPont, Alcoa and General Electric, agree that it’s time for the federal government to create strong laws to cut global warming pollution. Public and political support for solutions has never been stronger. Congress is now considering fresh proposals to cap emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants from America’s largest sources — power plants, industrial facilities and transportation fuels.

Stricter efficiency requirements for electric appliances will also help reduce pollution. One example is the 30 percent tighter standard now in place for home central air conditioners and heat pumps, a Clinton-era achievement that will prevent the emission of 51 million metric tons of carbon — the equivalent of taking 34 million cars off the road for one year. The new rule survived a Bush administration effort to weaken it when, in January 2004, a federal court sided with an NRDC-led coalition and reversed the administration’s rollback.
It is the place where we live in. We should take care of our planet. Global warming is a serious problem…it is a shame that rich and powerful people do not care about it.

Christina Sabella

Global warming is increasingly recognised as the key threat to the continued development – and even survival – of humanity. Here, we give the context obtained from earth history, as the pattern of global environmental change in the past provides an indispensable context to establishing likely trajectories of future climate change. We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling.

Do we need new laws requiring industry to cut emissions of global warming pollution?

Yes. The Bush administration has supported only voluntary reduction programs, but these have failed to stop the growth of emissions. Even leaders of major corporations, including companies such as DuPont, Alcoa and General Electric, agree that it’s time for the federal government to create strong laws to cut global warming pollution. Public and political support for solutions has never been stronger. Congress is now considering fresh proposals to cap emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants from America’s largest sources — power plants, industrial facilities and transportation fuels.

Stricter efficiency requirements for electric appliances will also help reduce pollution. One example is the 30 percent tighter standard now in place for home central air conditioners and heat pumps, a Clinton-era achievement that will prevent the emission of 51 million metric tons of carbon — the equivalent of taking 34 million cars off the road for one year. The new rule survived a Bush administration effort to weaken it when, in January 2004, a federal court sided with an NRDC-led coalition and reversed the administration’s rollback.
It is the place where we live in. We should take care of our planet. Global warming is a serious problem…it is a shame that rich and powerful people do not care about it.

patrick

I might respect the initial writers”facts” just a little more if he could tell us where he acquired those facts.
Given that Exxon Mobil can spare lots of money out of its multi- billion dollar profits to hire pseudo scientists for its FUD( fear, uncertainty, doubt) campaign and to fund lawyers to continue to evade their responsibility for cleaning up after the Exxon Valdez spill I think I’m more than warranted in questioning the assertions of someone who terms those wishing a cleaner environment eco-nuts.

patrick

I might respect the initial writers”facts” just a little more if he could tell us where he acquired those facts.
Given that Exxon Mobil can spare lots of money out of its multi- billion dollar profits to hire pseudo scientists for its FUD( fear, uncertainty, doubt) campaign and to fund lawyers to continue to evade their responsibility for cleaning up after the Exxon Valdez spill I think I’m more than warranted in questioning the assertions of someone who terms those wishing a cleaner environment eco-nuts.

Dan Staley

>>There is no “consensus” among climatologists that our civilization’s use of fossil fuels are destroying the earth. “Consensus” is totally foreign to the scientific method in that a theory is formed explaining the observed facts, then published for ongoing debate

Dan Staley

>>There is no “consensus” among climatologists that our civilization’s use of fossil fuels are destroying the earth. “Consensus” is totally foreign to the scientific method in that a theory is formed explaining the observed facts, then published for ongoing debate

Dan Staley

Not sure what happened above…

No and No to Joe.

There may not be a consensus that earth is being destroyed, but there sure is a consensus that humans are changing the climate. Not sure why you have to misrepresent the issue.

And there’s a consensus on gravity, physical laws, plate tectonics, optics. There is consensus in every scientific discipline.

Please.

DS

Dan Staley

Not sure what happened above…

No and No to Joe.

There may not be a consensus that earth is being destroyed, but there sure is a consensus that humans are changing the climate. Not sure why you have to misrepresent the issue.

And there’s a consensus on gravity, physical laws, plate tectonics, optics. There is consensus in every scientific discipline.

Please.

DS

Pauly

I have tried posting twice but both have been blocked, and I suppose it by you Joe.

I have direct links PROVING that every think you said is an out right lie.

Post my reply so that the people can know the truth.

Pauly

I have tried posting twice but both have been blocked, and I suppose it by you Joe.

I have direct links PROVING that every think you said is an out right lie.

Post my reply so that the people can know the truth.

Pauly

Joe,

Where are you getting you “facts” You posted or cited NOTHING! The FACT is (and I can’t believe that I have to post this again!) Most of the empirical scientists in the academia scientific community do believe in Global warming. And not just global warming but that this “trend” happens to be at a record high and a record amount of time without signs of slowing down. Now there is a rift within the scientific community as to what’s causing it. Most of the scientist believes that it’s man made or a reaction to our input. Most of the scientists that don’t believe its man made are from here in the U.S. and have grants directly related to the oil industry. Very few scientist outside of the U.S. Believe otherwise. Now within the group that do not believe it’s manmade there is another rift, some believe that it’s an out of control natural trend, cause by other effects and one lonely scientist at the U of Wyoming believe that it’s not accruing at all.

That little ice age from the 1500’s to the 1700’s was a local event up in the higher altitude of the Canadian Rockies, but it even stated very clearly in the opening assessment that it dropped very quickly to our current warming trend! MAN how are you able to stretch these truths and be able to look you kids in the face? Here is the scientific report on that event if you don’t believe me. READ IT! It’s from the noted Richard Tkachuck of the Geosciences Research Institute. http://www.grisda.org/origins/10051.pdf Is this one of your eco-nuts that you were talking about? If so, than why did you site and hack up his findings!

Pauly

Joe,

Where are you getting you “facts” You posted or cited NOTHING! The FACT is (and I can’t believe that I have to post this again!) Most of the empirical scientists in the academia scientific community do believe in Global warming. And not just global warming but that this “trend” happens to be at a record high and a record amount of time without signs of slowing down. Now there is a rift within the scientific community as to what’s causing it. Most of the scientist believes that it’s man made or a reaction to our input. Most of the scientists that don’t believe its man made are from here in the U.S. and have grants directly related to the oil industry. Very few scientist outside of the U.S. Believe otherwise. Now within the group that do not believe it’s manmade there is another rift, some believe that it’s an out of control natural trend, cause by other effects and one lonely scientist at the U of Wyoming believe that it’s not accruing at all.

That little ice age from the 1500’s to the 1700’s was a local event up in the higher altitude of the Canadian Rockies, but it even stated very clearly in the opening assessment that it dropped very quickly to our current warming trend! MAN how are you able to stretch these truths and be able to look you kids in the face? Here is the scientific report on that event if you don’t believe me. READ IT! It’s from the noted Richard Tkachuck of the Geosciences Research Institute. http://www.grisda.org/origins/10051.pdf Is this one of your eco-nuts that you were talking about? If so, than why did you site and hack up his findings!

Pauly

As far as you saying that the earth was warmer 100 years ago, the only thing I have been able to find that remotely supports your “fact” is from the Omni Theater of Minnesota called “Volcanoes”. And in the webpage it states that there were more “active” volcanoes 1000 years ago than there were today. Is that you “factual” evidence?

Seriously Joe…how can you make these clams and honestly look at people (let alone your children who will be living long after your dead) and be taken seriously.

Get your “facts” straight next time

Pauly

Thank you!

Pauly

As far as you saying that the earth was warmer 100 years ago, the only thing I have been able to find that remotely supports your “fact” is from the Omni Theater of Minnesota called “Volcanoes”. And in the webpage it states that there were more “active” volcanoes 1000 years ago than there were today. Is that you “factual” evidence?

Seriously Joe…how can you make these clams and honestly look at people (let alone your children who will be living long after your dead) and be taken seriously.

Get your “facts” straight next time

Pauly

Thank you!

Joe

Dan,

You said I misrepresented the issue over wording of “destroying the earth”. Then let me clarify it, there is no irrefutable evidence that humans are causing the warming of the earth. You went on to say there sure is a consensus that humans are changing the climate. Consensus from who? 600 scientists from the UN’s IPCC and people that believe AlGore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”? Yeah, they’d sure like us to believe that our current climate is normal but nothing could be farther from fact.

Science magazine reported that rich boreal forests covered much of Greenland just a few hundred thousand years ago. This was discovered by researchers drilling cores and taking plant samples from under the Greenland ice sheet. Continental drift from plate tectonics will not account for such a recent warm period in Greenland’s history (plant and animal life thrived in temperatures that were approximately 15 degrees Celsius warmer than today). That’s hardly normal and far warmer then current conditions. The last I heard our ancestors at that time were wearing skins, using stone tools and were barely scrabbling to stay alive much less affecting the world’s climate.

The problem for global warming alarmists is that the poles currently show no sign of human-induced global warming. Antarctica is in a prolonged cold spell and is gaining rather than losing ice mass. While a small portion of West Antarctica is warming and losing ice mass, the vast majority of the continent is getting colder and gaining ice.

Here’s some more facts,

Carbon dioxide is not the major greenhouse gas trapping heat (water vapor is).

Carbon dioxide accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect, as carbon dioxide’s ability to absorb heat is quite limited.

Only about 0.03 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively).

The sun is primarily to “blame” for global warming — and plays a very key role in global temperature variations as well.

Maybe you could counter some of the points I’ve put forth about past history of climate change and lack of mankind’s influence on those changes.

Joe

Dan,

You said I misrepresented the issue over wording of “destroying the earth”. Then let me clarify it, there is no irrefutable evidence that humans are causing the warming of the earth. You went on to say there sure is a consensus that humans are changing the climate. Consensus from who? 600 scientists from the UN’s IPCC and people that believe AlGore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”? Yeah, they’d sure like us to believe that our current climate is normal but nothing could be farther from fact.

Science magazine reported that rich boreal forests covered much of Greenland just a few hundred thousand years ago. This was discovered by researchers drilling cores and taking plant samples from under the Greenland ice sheet. Continental drift from plate tectonics will not account for such a recent warm period in Greenland’s history (plant and animal life thrived in temperatures that were approximately 15 degrees Celsius warmer than today). That’s hardly normal and far warmer then current conditions. The last I heard our ancestors at that time were wearing skins, using stone tools and were barely scrabbling to stay alive much less affecting the world’s climate.

The problem for global warming alarmists is that the poles currently show no sign of human-induced global warming. Antarctica is in a prolonged cold spell and is gaining rather than losing ice mass. While a small portion of West Antarctica is warming and losing ice mass, the vast majority of the continent is getting colder and gaining ice.

Here’s some more facts,

Carbon dioxide is not the major greenhouse gas trapping heat (water vapor is).

Carbon dioxide accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect, as carbon dioxide’s ability to absorb heat is quite limited.

Only about 0.03 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively).

The sun is primarily to “blame” for global warming — and plays a very key role in global temperature variations as well.

Maybe you could counter some of the points I’ve put forth about past history of climate change and lack of mankind’s influence on those changes.

patrick

One supposes that Joe is blathering about the Milankovitch cycles, more information about which here:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
Some minimal research would have shown Joe that we are currently in the minimum phase of those cycles.And none of his assertions comes close to addressing my main question which is; just what is it that conservatives wish to conserve, or the other posed above about just what does it hurt to reduce our consumption of fossil fuel?Nor does anyone address exxonmobil’s willingness to spend big money disseminating misleading information on the subject of global climate change.http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

patrick

One supposes that Joe is blathering about the Milankovitch cycles, more information about which here:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
Some minimal research would have shown Joe that we are currently in the minimum phase of those cycles.And none of his assertions comes close to addressing my main question which is; just what is it that conservatives wish to conserve, or the other posed above about just what does it hurt to reduce our consumption of fossil fuel?Nor does anyone address exxonmobil’s willingness to spend big money disseminating misleading information on the subject of global climate change.http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

Pauly

Joe,

I have a question for you, and I hope you seriously think about it.

Lest assume that every body in the scientific community dose a 360 and starts aligning their research finding to the way that you are thinking. In fact let’s say that it’s a particular bug or plant that is causing this greenhouse effect. And humans not only were not the cause but we could do nothing to reverse the process.

I’m telling right now I would sell my 3 cylinder Geo Metro and bike, buy a HUGE truck and stop investing my time in stopping the global warming trend and invest my time and money in pesticides that kill that bug or plant.

But what would you do if every scientist clamed, without a doubt that not only humans were the root cause of this global warming trend that will change the face of out planet but that it was a direct result of you lifestyle. What would you do?

See I ask this question to find out if your research is empirical or partisan. If you say that you would actually change your lifestyle to be more (for lack of a better way of saying it) green friendly than your actually looking at the research with open eyes. But if you say that you still wouldn’t change one dam thing, than it’s obvious that you have an agenda already prepared in your research. Thus rendering it unusable and unreliable.

Pauly

Joe,

I have a question for you, and I hope you seriously think about it.

Lest assume that every body in the scientific community dose a 360 and starts aligning their research finding to the way that you are thinking. In fact let’s say that it’s a particular bug or plant that is causing this greenhouse effect. And humans not only were not the cause but we could do nothing to reverse the process.

I’m telling right now I would sell my 3 cylinder Geo Metro and bike, buy a HUGE truck and stop investing my time in stopping the global warming trend and invest my time and money in pesticides that kill that bug or plant.

But what would you do if every scientist clamed, without a doubt that not only humans were the root cause of this global warming trend that will change the face of out planet but that it was a direct result of you lifestyle. What would you do?

See I ask this question to find out if your research is empirical or partisan. If you say that you would actually change your lifestyle to be more (for lack of a better way of saying it) green friendly than your actually looking at the research with open eyes. But if you say that you still wouldn’t change one dam thing, than it’s obvious that you have an agenda already prepared in your research. Thus rendering it unusable and unreliable.

Joe

Dr. Edward Wegman, “Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported.”

Dr. Edward Wegman is a professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association.

+++

Dr. Richard Tol, “There is no risk of damage [from global warming] that would force us to act injudiciously,” he explains. “We’ve got enough time to look for the economically most effective options, rather than dash into ‘actionism,’ which then becomes very expensive.”

Dr. Richard Tol received his PhD in Economics from the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. He is Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change at Hamburg University, director of the Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Science, principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University. He is a board member of the Centre for Marine and Climate Research, the International Max Planck Research Schools of Earth Systems Modelling and Maritime Affairs, and the European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment.

Dr. Christopher Landsea, “Where is the science, the refereed publications, that substantiate these pronouncements? What studies are being alluded to that have shown a connection between observed warming trends on the earth and long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity? As far as I know, there are none.”

Dr. Christopher Landsea received his doctoral degree in atmospheric science from Colorado State University. A research meteorologist at the Atlantic Oceanic and Meteorological Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he was chair of the American Meteorological Society’s committee on tropical meteorology and tropical cyclones and a recipient of the American Meteorological Society’s Banner I. Miller Award for the “best contribution to the science of hurricane and tropical weather forecasting.”

+++

Dr. Duncan Wingham comments on the notion of the antarctic ice sheets are melting, “One cannot be certain, because packets of heat in the atmosphere do not come conveniently labelled ‘the contribution of anthropogenic(human caused) warming,’ ” Dr. Wingham elaborated, but the evidence is not “favourable to the notion we are seeing the results of global warming”.

Dr. Duncan Wingham was educated at Leeds and Bath Universities where he gained a B.Sc. and PhD. in Physics. He was appointed to a chair in the Department of Space and Climate Physics in 1996, and to head of the Department of Earth Sciences in October, 2005. Prof. Wingham is a member of the National Environmental Research Council’s Science and Technology Board and Earth Observation Experts Group. He is a director of the NERC Centre for Polar Observation & Modelling and principal scientist of the European Space Agency CryoSat Satellite Mission, the first ESA Earth Sciences satellite selected through open, scientific competition.

At the South Pole, where the U.S. decades ago established a station, temperatures have actually fallen since 1957. Neither is Antarctica’s advance or retreat a new question raised by the spectre of global warming: This is the oldest scientific question of all about the Antarctic ice sheet.

+++

Dr. Richard Lindzen (participant in one IPCC report), “Almost all reading and coverage of the IPCC is restricted to the highly publicized Summaries for Policymakers which are written by representatives from governments, NGOs and business; the full reports, written by participating scientists, are largely ignored,”

Dr. Lindzen’s description of the conditions under which the climate scientists worked conjures up a scene worthy of a totalitarian state: “throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC ‘coordinators’ would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that ‘motherhood’ statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their ‘green’ credentials in defense of their statements.”

Dr. Richard Lindzen received his PhD in applied mathematics in 1964 from Harvard University. A professor of meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a member of the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He is also a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS’s Meisinger, and Charney Awards,
and AGU’s Macelwane Medal.

+++

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, “”Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians, these parallel global warmings — observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth — can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance.”

“Ascribing ‘greenhouse’ effect properties to the Earth’s atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated,” he maintains. “Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.”

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, born in Samarkand in Uzbekistan in 1940, graduated from Samarkand University in 1962 as a physicist and a mathematician. He earned his doctorate at Pulkovo Observatory and the University of Leningrad. He is the head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academies of Sciences’ Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station’s Astrometry project, a long-term joint scientific research project of the Russian and Ukranian space agencies.

+++

Dr. Nir Shaviv of Israel’s Racah Institute of Physics, “Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

“In fact, there is much more than meets the eye.”

“Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming,” he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that “it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist.”

“Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant.”

+++

Dr. Claude Allegre wrote 20 years ago, “By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last
century.”

He then wrote last september an article entitled “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” in l’ Express, the French weekly. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro’s retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. “The cause of this climate change is unknown,” he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the “science is settled.”

Calling the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change “simplistic and obscuring the true dangers,” Dr. Allegre especially despairs at “the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man’s role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters.”

Dr. Claude Allegre received a Ph D in physics in 1962 from the University of Paris. He became the director of the geochemistry and cosmochemistry program at the French National Scientific Research Centre in 1967 and in 1971, he was appointed director of the University of Paris’s Department of Earth Sciences. In 1976, he became director of the Paris Institut de Physique du Globe. He is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the French Academy of Science.

+++

These examples provided by established scientists (many at the top of their field) listed above show there is no universal “consensus” among the world’s leading scientists that humans are causing global warming.

If you don’t believe or put credence in what these academics had to say about the global warming issue then I suppose you live in some sort of fantasy greens world where free scientific research is not allowed.

Oh, and I’m not the owner of this blog. I wrote my original post here as “letter to the editor” of the Denver Post. They chose to edit it and place it here among the newspapers eletters. Other then my posts here I have no affiliation with the Denver Post or any of it’s related companies. If you’re having problems posting please contact the Denver Post and don’t say that somehow I’m stopping you from placing your comments. I don’t even have the ability to edit my own posts much less affect others.

Joe

Dr. Edward Wegman, “Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported.”

Dr. Edward Wegman is a professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association.

+++

Dr. Richard Tol, “There is no risk of damage [from global warming] that would force us to act injudiciously,” he explains. “We’ve got enough time to look for the economically most effective options, rather than dash into ‘actionism,’ which then becomes very expensive.”

Dr. Richard Tol received his PhD in Economics from the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. He is Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change at Hamburg University, director of the Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Science, principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University. He is a board member of the Centre for Marine and Climate Research, the International Max Planck Research Schools of Earth Systems Modelling and Maritime Affairs, and the European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment.

Dr. Christopher Landsea, “Where is the science, the refereed publications, that substantiate these pronouncements? What studies are being alluded to that have shown a connection between observed warming trends on the earth and long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity? As far as I know, there are none.”

Dr. Christopher Landsea received his doctoral degree in atmospheric science from Colorado State University. A research meteorologist at the Atlantic Oceanic and Meteorological Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he was chair of the American Meteorological Society’s committee on tropical meteorology and tropical cyclones and a recipient of the American Meteorological Society’s Banner I. Miller Award for the “best contribution to the science of hurricane and tropical weather forecasting.”

+++

Dr. Duncan Wingham comments on the notion of the antarctic ice sheets are melting, “One cannot be certain, because packets of heat in the atmosphere do not come conveniently labelled ‘the contribution of anthropogenic(human caused) warming,’ ” Dr. Wingham elaborated, but the evidence is not “favourable to the notion we are seeing the results of global warming”.

Dr. Duncan Wingham was educated at Leeds and Bath Universities where he gained a B.Sc. and PhD. in Physics. He was appointed to a chair in the Department of Space and Climate Physics in 1996, and to head of the Department of Earth Sciences in October, 2005. Prof. Wingham is a member of the National Environmental Research Council’s Science and Technology Board and Earth Observation Experts Group. He is a director of the NERC Centre for Polar Observation & Modelling and principal scientist of the European Space Agency CryoSat Satellite Mission, the first ESA Earth Sciences satellite selected through open, scientific competition.

At the South Pole, where the U.S. decades ago established a station, temperatures have actually fallen since 1957. Neither is Antarctica’s advance or retreat a new question raised by the spectre of global warming: This is the oldest scientific question of all about the Antarctic ice sheet.

+++

Dr. Richard Lindzen (participant in one IPCC report), “Almost all reading and coverage of the IPCC is restricted to the highly publicized Summaries for Policymakers which are written by representatives from governments, NGOs and business; the full reports, written by participating scientists, are largely ignored,”

Dr. Lindzen’s description of the conditions under which the climate scientists worked conjures up a scene worthy of a totalitarian state: “throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC ‘coordinators’ would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that ‘motherhood’ statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their ‘green’ credentials in defense of their statements.”

Dr. Richard Lindzen received his PhD in applied mathematics in 1964 from Harvard University. A professor of meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a member of the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He is also a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS’s Meisinger, and Charney Awards,
and AGU’s Macelwane Medal.

+++

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, “”Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians, these parallel global warmings — observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth — can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance.”

“Ascribing ‘greenhouse’ effect properties to the Earth’s atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated,” he maintains. “Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.”

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, born in Samarkand in Uzbekistan in 1940, graduated from Samarkand University in 1962 as a physicist and a mathematician. He earned his doctorate at Pulkovo Observatory and the University of Leningrad. He is the head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academies of Sciences’ Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station’s Astrometry project, a long-term joint scientific research project of the Russian and Ukranian space agencies.

+++

Dr. Nir Shaviv of Israel’s Racah Institute of Physics, “Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

“In fact, there is much more than meets the eye.”

“Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming,” he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that “it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist.”

“Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant.”

+++

Dr. Claude Allegre wrote 20 years ago, “By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last
century.”

He then wrote last september an article entitled “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” in l’ Express, the French weekly. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro’s retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. “The cause of this climate change is unknown,” he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the “science is settled.”

Calling the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change “simplistic and obscuring the true dangers,” Dr. Allegre especially despairs at “the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man’s role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters.”

Dr. Claude Allegre received a Ph D in physics in 1962 from the University of Paris. He became the director of the geochemistry and cosmochemistry program at the French National Scientific Research Centre in 1967 and in 1971, he was appointed director of the University of Paris’s Department of Earth Sciences. In 1976, he became director of the Paris Institut de Physique du Globe. He is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the French Academy of Science.

+++

These examples provided by established scientists (many at the top of their field) listed above show there is no universal “consensus” among the world’s leading scientists that humans are causing global warming.

If you don’t believe or put credence in what these academics had to say about the global warming issue then I suppose you live in some sort of fantasy greens world where free scientific research is not allowed.

Oh, and I’m not the owner of this blog. I wrote my original post here as “letter to the editor” of the Denver Post. They chose to edit it and place it here among the newspapers eletters. Other then my posts here I have no affiliation with the Denver Post or any of it’s related companies. If you’re having problems posting please contact the Denver Post and don’t say that somehow I’m stopping you from placing your comments. I don’t even have the ability to edit my own posts much less affect others.

Joe

One of Paulie’s “creatable websites for you to start reading” takes you to a creationist vs science website. Better get on your knees and start praying the wrath of God isn’t just around the corner.

GRI, Geoscience Research Institute

YEC creationist organization located in Loma Linda, California. Founded in 1958 it serves the Seventh-day Adventist church in two major areas: research and communication. Interestingly in the FAQ at the website is the claim “the origin of life is consistent with the creationist theory that life is the result of intelligent design”

Joe

One of Paulie’s “creatable websites for you to start reading” takes you to a creationist vs science website. Better get on your knees and start praying the wrath of God isn’t just around the corner.

GRI, Geoscience Research Institute

YEC creationist organization located in Loma Linda, California. Founded in 1958 it serves the Seventh-day Adventist church in two major areas: research and communication. Interestingly in the FAQ at the website is the claim “the origin of life is consistent with the creationist theory that life is the result of intelligent design”

Pauly

That’s it?!?

That’s the entire rebuttal we get?

One website that I posted which did have a creationist vs. science segment in it is all the info you needed to disprove the countless array of information the PROVES that you know absolutely noting of which your talking about? Is that it?

And after all I’ve said you actually think I’d side with the creationist side?

Again, how are you able to look people in the eye?

Say Joe, I have an idea, how about responding to the FACT that I disproved that most of the entire science community DOSE believes in global warming. That it is warming at a higher rate and at a faster rate. In fact there is only one notable scientist that doesn’t. The only question is that there is a rift in what is causing global warming.

How about responding to that just about all of the scientist that don’t believe that it being man-made are from America, and have grants or are funded by corporations that have a vested interest in the outcome of their research? (any and all questions would be directed to the websites I posted…except that ONE you find questionable)

How about you respond to that you only gave a small portion of the truth when citing the 1500’s to 1700’s “ice age”. In fact the entire study did little to prove your point except that it had a great title that you though you could snowball us with? In fact that study dose more to prove the current warming trend being man-made than it ever would to disprove it.

How about you respond to, that I can not find any creatable evidence proving that the earth was warmer 1000 years ago than it is today? Seriously, I can’t find anything to that effect.

How about you respond to the FACT that you know absolutely noting as to the effect that CO2 has on the climate. That Co2 is an insolate that keeps the heat in and has noting to do with absorption

How about you respond to the fact that although today the earth has only .03% (actually .0383%) of carbon in it’s atmosphere (Or labeled 383 ppmv) but is 38% more than in 1832 when it had 284 ppm. I’m not sure of the exact amount but only a few more percentages and our atmosphere would be rendered unbeatable. So even a small fluctuation is incredibly dangerous.

No…you’d just like to say that one of my postings (which, may I point out that you have yet to post even ONE!) had a creationist vs. science platform in it…that’s it!

Pathetic!

Pauly

That’s it?!?

That’s the entire rebuttal we get?

One website that I posted which did have a creationist vs. science segment in it is all the info you needed to disprove the countless array of information the PROVES that you know absolutely noting of which your talking about? Is that it?

And after all I’ve said you actually think I’d side with the creationist side?

Again, how are you able to look people in the eye?

Say Joe, I have an idea, how about responding to the FACT that I disproved that most of the entire science community DOSE believes in global warming. That it is warming at a higher rate and at a faster rate. In fact there is only one notable scientist that doesn’t. The only question is that there is a rift in what is causing global warming.

How about responding to that just about all of the scientist that don’t believe that it being man-made are from America, and have grants or are funded by corporations that have a vested interest in the outcome of their research? (any and all questions would be directed to the websites I posted…except that ONE you find questionable)

How about you respond to that you only gave a small portion of the truth when citing the 1500’s to 1700’s “ice age”. In fact the entire study did little to prove your point except that it had a great title that you though you could snowball us with? In fact that study dose more to prove the current warming trend being man-made than it ever would to disprove it.

How about you respond to, that I can not find any creatable evidence proving that the earth was warmer 1000 years ago than it is today? Seriously, I can’t find anything to that effect.

How about you respond to the FACT that you know absolutely noting as to the effect that CO2 has on the climate. That Co2 is an insolate that keeps the heat in and has noting to do with absorption

How about you respond to the fact that although today the earth has only .03% (actually .0383%) of carbon in it’s atmosphere (Or labeled 383 ppmv) but is 38% more than in 1832 when it had 284 ppm. I’m not sure of the exact amount but only a few more percentages and our atmosphere would be rendered unbeatable. So even a small fluctuation is incredibly dangerous.

No…you’d just like to say that one of my postings (which, may I point out that you have yet to post even ONE!) had a creationist vs. science platform in it…that’s it!

Pathetic!

Dan Staley

Let me just say that society has moved on with respect to the cause of man-made climate change.

We are now discussing adaptation and mitigation. Well, most of us are. Some of us continue our denial on newspaper comment strings. Society has passed the denialists by. Sorry to break the news to you.

DS

Dan Staley

Let me just say that society has moved on with respect to the cause of man-made climate change.

We are now discussing adaptation and mitigation. Well, most of us are. Some of us continue our denial on newspaper comment strings. Society has passed the denialists by. Sorry to break the news to you.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...